It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
#1 The Oddjob question could just as easily be reversed. ie Why should Oddjob have killed Bond?
Jill was a goner for being a disloyal employee. Just like in the book.
Bond however might have been granted professional respect at this early "happenstance" stage of the game. Killing has consequences even for someone as ruthless as Goldfinger.
#2 Aside from making assumption that Goldfinger would have had such a serum handy, he may not have wanted to use it anyway. Such drugs aren't always reliable, do require expert application, and as Kamal Khan explained in OP, use of such drugs can permanently damage the recipient. Meanwhile GF wanted to give interested obsevers, the impression that Bond was doing just fine.
#3 Bond is blunt instrument. He had what he needed from Dent, plus interrogation isn't a sure way to get reliable answers, especially not something improvised in the field. Plus, it had been established that No's employees weren't exactly inclined towards talking.
"You've had your six" fits closer to the Bond style and 007 M.O.
#4. Quarrel could have said F.U. to Bond, but he was quite happy to get the shoes.
Bond was running this show and Quarrel didn't have any "quarrel" with that. Why should he?
Bond also bossed around the girl, and Leiter too. Leiter was practically Bond's bitch, three films later in TB.
In CR, Bond seems surprised when M informs him that his poker winnings have yet to be deposited into the Treasury's account. My guess is that he assumed that the account number that Vesper entered was for the Treasury when in reality it was Bond's bank account. My question, why wire the money to Bond's account and then withdraw the money in cash, necessitating a risky handover to Gettler? Why not just wire the money directly to Gettler or Mr. White?
I always attributed it to everyone dropping to the ground before it plummets through the wall, but I believe we get a side shot of the train where we would've seen them. I chalk it up to a goof, much like how Rome was barebones during the car chase and how nobody was working aside from C when Nine Eyes was set to go live; surely that building would've been lit up and filled with employees.
I believe that before the poker game begins the Swiss banker comments about the money of the winner being kept in a separate account that the casino would be holding for them, so that they could then transfer the money from the private winnings account to any other one they wished whenever they deemed it so. Vesper was given the account number that the money way being held in, as Bond had her deal with the money exclusively (still suspecting Mathis instead of her) and so she could've easily gone to the city, taken all the money out of the account and had it released in bills she could then take to the meeting.
Of course the moment that the money was taken from the temporary account the Swiss banker nor MI6 would suspect anything, as they would think it was Bond and Vesper making the transfer. When the money didn't end up coming back from the Treasury, however, the truth was out and Bond knew that Vesper was using the opportunity to empty and sneak the money from the account to someone else. If Vesper would've transferred the money directly, it would've put a track on Quantum, and that could lead to the group being found out. By having the transfer made in cash, there is no trace and though the money from the account was gone, its form in bills would mean Quantum could take it and run, holding it privately and out of any accounts to avoid suspicions or exposure.
I think it's because the London bus/train bombings had occurred recently and they didn't want to appear distasteful. So instead it was an empty train.
While this is true - a Bond film is not really going to show a terrorist attack where civilians die a la the Die Hard 3 subway bomb (although you don't really see anyone die there) - you can get round it by saying it's a train that had a defect or the driver's shift had ended and it was being taken out of his service.
Hardly satisfactory though I agree, it would certainly give more oomph to the attack and Silva being a mentalist if the train was full of commuters.
Does anybody know what happened there? Was there an intention to show up front the casualties of Silva's actions of terrorism in London, but it was cut for its hard content? It would've been a lot to see, but I think it would've really added a sense of danger and threat if we saw the rubble of MI6 around M's office with the dead or some of the casualties that had to've happened in the subway and around the courtroom.
As it is Silva has just committed the biggest terrorist attack since 7/7 yet it's never mentioned again and Bond's mission to catch the terrorist is incidental to bringing down the nutter who is stalking M.
I do understand why they maybe didn't want to go there, and hearing news reports from London in the past few months both SF and SP have been horribly prophetic of so many of the tragedies we are seeing now with the city in turmoil.
We see that at the beginning with the coffins covered in Union Jack flags. I think it would have been a bit unnecessary to show that, especially as there weren't any civilians injured by the tube crash. You see them all evacuating the station and the police/emergency services arriving when Silva leaves and Bond comes out of the tube station onto Whitehall.
The actual incident isn't the focus of the film. Its just plot to get Silva and Bond to Whitehall.
I don't think it's strange to assume that the tube crash that knocked down a lot of foundation and caused a lot of damage wouldn't have caused some damage past the area Bond was in, or at the very least kicked up a lot of dust and dirt that nearby civilians would be suffocated by as they rushed out.
The incident could've been more of a focus than it was, because its use as something beyond a vessel to get Bond to Whitehall would again show what happens when Silva is allowed to run amok.
I think Mendes stepped up his game in this regard with SP, showing more consequential content in similar moments than SF failed to do. Hinx's kills, White's suicide, Bond's torture and the very ominous feeling of so many moments really hit home with me and feel more in touch with the consequences of Bond's world where we see what his mistakes or the actions of others cause directly. The only thing that was missing was a bit more hysteria after the building explosion in the PTS, though we see all the carnage and witness the aftermath in a way we never do with what is in SF. The film doesn't feel like it's hiding anything from us or holding back, whereas I can get that sense from SF at times. SP is more like CR and QoS in that way, as the latter two hold nothing back and don't shy away from presenting the very real stakes in Bond's game of life and death.